Last week we looked on with revulsion and fear as Mexican officials revealed that they had found six dozen bodies at a remote ranch near the U.S. border. It was the biggest single discovery of its kind in Mexico’s increasingly bloody drug war. The Mexicans came across the bodies of the migrant workers after a series of firefights with drug gang members. This followed the gunfight that resulted in bullets flying into America, as well as various stories of Mexican military incursions across the border.
So the Mexican government has decided to do something about. And what are they going to do? They are going to increase their presence in Staten Island, N.Y. That’s right. Staten Island. Now, I am NYC born and raised, and I can testify that Staten Island is more like the country than the city. Staten Island is a quiet, largely residential borough of New York City. So why is the Mexican government interested in it?
Well, the Staten Island neighborhood of Port Richmond has seen a large influx of Mexican illegal immigrants. Police are investigating an assault on a Hispanic man in Staten Island as a possible hate crime and, according to the police, this is at least the sixth violent, ethnically charged incident that has taken place in the neighborhood since April. Community leaders are all atwitter, urging residents to remain alert. New York City police have been monitoring the situation and investigating the reported assaults as local crimes.
The statements of the Mexican government promising to get involved have caused Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly to order what many observers say is the most concentrated police mobilization since the World Trade Center disaster.
The main street of Port Richmond was swiftly transformed into what the New York Times described as a war zone atmosphere, with over 120 newly assigned officers, high-intensity lighting, two huge “sky tower” police observation posts, frequent helicopter overflights and 20 police cars to watch the center of the relatively small neighborhood. Several long-term residents described it as a constant hornet’s nest of activity.
This all before the Mexican government actually got involved! But while the crime of the 72 dead bodies goes unsolved, largely because the narco-terrorists own the Mexican government, the Mexicans started “breaking bad” to the residents of New York.
“We will act decisively in order to protect our citizens and will actively promote that those guilty of these vicious attacks are brought to justice expeditiously. We are working hand-in-hand with local authorities on all levels,” said Consul General of Mexico in New York, Ruben Beltran in an email to the Staten Island Advance. One wishes he had the backbone to demand the same of his own people. According to the Advance, this latest incident has promoted the Mexican Consulate to post personnel in Staten Island until further notice. This move is an effort to safeguard the rights of individuals and effectively assist and provide information to the Mexican residents of this area, according to Beltran.
There is, of course, some question as to whether this is a hate crime spree, or just local residents fed up with what they describe as the horrendous conditions the largely illegal immigrants have brought to their community. Community residents, many of whom are black first-time homeowners, told of constant disputes, alcohol and drug sales, late night disruptions, trespassing and public urination.
At a major community gathering held at the historic St. Phillip Baptist Church, speakers addressed the current situation in the neighborhood and the borough, while Mexican consular officials looked on. Others in the audience, who declined to testify, spoke of men wearing clothes bearing symbols of La Raza, Aztlan and other militant pro-Mexican groups. They also spoke of repeated attempts to summon the state liquor authority’s enforcement agency to deal with the surging illegal liquor sales in the area, with little in the way of a response .
The latest victim, ironically, declared his beating to be a hate crime, not because he had been involved in a related incident or because the suspects wanted to steal his belongings. In what is a telling coda to this story, the victim said, “It was a hate crime.” And, of course, he said it in Spanish.
There are two real points to this story, though. The first is: Under what authority or right does Mexico feel they can “post” people in our streets? If they are protecting Mexican citizens who are here illegally, they should identify them so we can deport them. If they are American citizens, we should make it clear to them that we can do it ourselves, without the help of corrupt Mexican officials. The second point is the utter corruption and complicity of the Mexican government in the international drug trade. Every day we read more and more stories of the violence and crime that are destroying Mexico from within. It’s no wonder so many Mexicans leave. I would too, if I lived there. The Mexicans making noise about a few beatings would do well to remember Jesus’ command to “remove the beam from your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your brother’s eye.” This is all a smokescreen to divert attention from the war zone on our southern border.
Nancy Pelosi has again showed her true colors. When asked about the “ground-zero” mosque in New York City, the California congresswoman said Muslim leaders have the right to build a proposed Islamic center, including a mosque, two blocks from the World Trade Center site and that the decision should be made by local leaders. But then she goes further, saying, “There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.” She, of course, stands with Obama and against Harry Reid on this issue, which has many democrats trying to figure out which way the wind blows on the “Cordoba House.”
She starts out by asserting that the muslims have the right to build, which is all well and good. I think it’s fairly settled first amendment law that that’s the case. She’s also right in deferring to local authorities on the decision-making process. What’s interesting is her call for investigations into the funding of opposition to the mosque. Oddly enough, this puts her in good company with the mayor of New York City, who has said that any investigation into the funding of the 100 million dollar Cordoba House would be un-American.
Let’s backtrack a little. Back when Bush was in office, Nancy Pelosi made the news time and time again saying that dissent was patriotic. It was American, it was right to dissent, and it was in keeping with the best traditions of our country. Now, apparently, she’s changed her mind. If any dares to dissent from the decision to allow the community center building, she wants them investigated. The goal is clear: shut down opposition to the government by threatening to investigate one’s finances.
Where now is the liberal/left outrage about our free speech rights? If one objects to the building of a community center for muslims, one will have their finances investigated? Pelosi’s call for a federal investigation, for that is, after all, the only level of government in her purview, should be bone-chilling. Where is the ACLU? Where are the media, the bloggers, the protesters in the streets? Oh, wait, that’s right. They only believe in dissent if they’re the dissenters. If one dissents from them, well, they deserve to be investigated.
No-one should be shocked by this. If one disagrees with anything the left proposes, one is almost immediately labeled. Racist, fascist, hitleresque, etc. The list goes on, with one of their favorites being to invoke the spirit of Joe McCarthy. Now it’s un-American to wonder where Rauf got 100 million dollars when two years ago he had barely 18 thousand in the bank? Hell, I want to know so I can duplicate it!
I hope she does investigate. I hope she holds congressional hearings on television. I will give money to the opponents of the Cordoba House in the hopes that I get called to testify. And should that glorious day come, I will stand in front of Pelosi, and tell her that I plead the fifth. I will take the same position her heroes did in front of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. I will stand, resolute and mute, and defy her and her cohorts. It’s no god-dammed business of hers where the opposition money comes from.
I wrote a column last week about the taliban and their cowardly murder of humanitarian medical workers. Many people objected to my suggestion that islam is incompatible with America and American ideals. One person suggested that I was causing the muslim cowards to attack by asserting that they hate any non-muslims. So I decided to test that hypothesis and I went to a web site that advertises itself as being “intelligent” and “authoritative.” What follows comes from http://www.islam-qa.com.
“Was Islam spread by the sword?
Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah in crowds. Hence the hearts of the enemies of Islam are filled with fear of jihad.
In the English-language Muslim World Magazine it says: There should be some kind of fear in the western world, one of the causes of which is that since the time it first appeared in Makkah, Islam has never decreased in numbers, rather it has always continued to increase and spread. Moreover Islam is not only a religion, rather one of its pillars is jihad.”(emphasis added)
“So whoever deviates from the Book is to be brought back with iron, i.e. by force. Hence the soundness of the religion is based on the Qur’aan and the Sword. Allaah has established the religion of Islam with proof and evidence, and with the sword and spear, both together and inseparable.”
“If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? Were they afraid of jihad and the imposition of the jizyah and being humiliated? That may make them enter Islam so that they may be spared this humiliation.”
Now back to the 21st century. The imam goes on like this for three or four pages, lauding the sword, and declaring that it is only just that muslims kill people. After all, islam, even according to the imam, is more than just a religion. And what a religion! Check out some of the latest from New Jersey:
Jihad Watch reported on Saturday that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man, accused of forcing non-consensual sex on his wife, was not guilty because of his religious beliefs. Here is the portion of his ruling that should leave no doubt that Islamic sharia law is penetrating America:
“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Luckily, the appellate court overruled that decision, calling the lower court judge “mistaken.” But it is interesting to note that the lower court judge initially decided that since the defendant believed in islam, he could not, as a matter of law, rape his wife. Oh, what a brave new world this religion of peace promises us.
And it’s not just judges and imams, although they provide plenty of fodder for us to chew. What did the head pedophile and murderer say about his own religion? Let’s see.
Qur’an:8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
There is no “vague assertion” here that the muslims want to kill us. They say it loud and clear. They said it on 9/11, they say it daily. What will it take for us to believe them?
Hilaire Belloc may have said it best. “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world, which will shake off the domination of Europeans – still nominally Christian – and reappear as the prime enemy of our civilization? The future always comes as a surprise, but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam.”
And just to finish up, let’s look at the list of FTOs, prepared by the Department of State. Out of 35 or so identified FTOs, how many are muslim? Here they are:
List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations
- Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) (International, Palestinian)
- Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) (Philippines)
- Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (Palestinian)
- Al-Shabaab (Somalia)
- Ansar al-Islam (Iraqi Kurdistan)
- Armed Islamic Group (GIA) (Algeria)
- Asbat an-Ansar (Lebanon)
- Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Egypt)
- HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) (Palestinian)
- Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI-B) (Bangladesh)
- Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) (Pakistan)
- Hizballah (Party of God) (Lebanon)
- Islamic Jihad Group (Palestinian)
- Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) (Uzbekistan)
- Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army of Mohammed) (JEM) (Pakistan)
- Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI) (South East Asia)
- Kata’ib Hizballah (Iraq)
- Lashkar-e Tayyiba (Army of the Righteous) (LT) (Muridke, Pakistan)
- Lashkar i Jhangvi (Pakistan)
- Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) (Libya)
- Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM) (Morocco)
- Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) (Iran)
- Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) (Palestinian)
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (Palestinian)
- PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC) (Palestinian)
- Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network) (Iraq)
- al-Qa’ida (Global)
- al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
- al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC) (The Maghreb)
Who could possibly imagine a more peaceful religion?
The taliban is at it again. That much vaunted religion of peace has displayed itself for all the world to see by murdering a group of doctors. A group of volunteer doctors treating the sick out of a sense of compassion and in keeping with the highest traditions of their profession. And their reward is to be slaughtered by the forces of intolerant islam.
The taliban claims that the doctors were spies for the U.S. and Christian proselytizers. I can’t speak to the accusations of spying, since the U.S. has used some unlikely spies in the past, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to back up those claims.
As to the claims of being Christians and trying to spread the good word, there is some evidence that that might be true. Some of the group were Christians, and some of them possessed Bibles in a native Afghani dialect. There is no direct evidence of them doing any preaching, although we can’t hear from them, being as how those peaceful muslims murdered them.
I am, as many of you know, a Roman Catholic. Most of my friends are of different protestant denominations. While I am willing to engage them in debate and rational discourse as to why I am right and they are wrong, it has never occurred to me to kill them over the issue. I, along with Lady Bird Johnson, believe that “the clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.” I also believe that only through constant examination and defense of our ideas can we reach some sort of certainty about them. The heart of islam, on the contrary, believes that any opposing idea must be silenced, by murder if need be. It seems to me that if one is convinced of the superiority of their religion, they would try to convince others to share in it, not kill those who don’t believe. And any religion, it seems to me, would recognize that every human being is the repository of an irreducible dignity, and seek to protect that dignity. Islam is the only religion I’m aware of that makes a point of destroying that dignity, even among its own followers.
But this sort of behavior is not new to islam. Killing men, women, and children “infidels” is par for the course for them. And they do it in the most cowardly of ways. Planes into buildings, bombs in supermarkets, and stoning women to death display the abhominable behavior of the adherents of this “religion of peace.” Now the indefensible murder of a team of doctors, whose only crime was to heal the sick. It is time that the West wakes up to the fact that islam is fundamentally incompatible with our civilization. We can no longer afford the luxury of granting them haven among us, hoping that they will adopt our values. We can’t hope that they will accept our differences, and co-exist with us in some sort of laissez-faire paradise. They are afraid of new or competing ideas, both technological and theological. Their answer to that fear is to kill, indiscriminately, everyone who isn’t just like them.
The taliban, like every other public expression of islam, is determined to reduce the world to the lowest common denominator they can find, and in this case, it appears to be a fourteenth century theocracy.
Not too long ago, a friend of mine posted a link to a website on his facebook page. The link was to a group called Move to Amend, a project of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy. (movetoamend.org) His immediate reason for posting the link was the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U. S. ____ (2010). So, I hied myself off to the site and had a good look around. What I found alternately saddened and frightened me.
The site claims that in Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. They also claim that the Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law; and that in a democracy, the people rule. They also want to amend our Constitution to:
- Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
- Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
- Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.
There are a number of things wrong with their claims, ranging from the simplistic to the demagogic. The simple one is familiar to anyone who’s read any of my stuff. The claim that America is, or should be, a democracy. Anyone who has taken any class in civics, or history, should know enough to know that America is a republic, not a democracy. It would be impossible to run an organization the size of America as a democracy. Can you imagine trying to organize 200 million voters to vote on Charlie Rangel’s ethics issues? Madness.
Let’s look at the meatier stuff. Did Citizens United rule that corporations are persons? We’ll leave out the absurd part about buying elections and running our government. Citizens United is 187 pages long. I’ve read the entire ruling, including dissents and concurrences. Nowhere does the court rule that corporations are people, nor could they, since that question wasn’t before them. They did recognize, that in some case, corporations were persons in a legal sense. The court also continued the distinction between natural people, like you and me, and legal people like corporations. Nowhere in the ruling does it state that corporations can “buy” elections.
What the ruling does say is that corporations, as well as other legal entities like unions and not-for-profit associations, can not be prohibited from spending money on campaigning and issue advocacy. They relied largely on the first amendment, which makes no mention of people, except in the section on assembly. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The founders were aware that this phrasing left open the idea of group speech, like the media. They were aware that if Congress could muzzle corporations, then they could muzzle any group, like churches, unions, fraternal organizations like the VFW, and political groups. Oddly enough, Movetoamend itself could be silenced under the interpretation they desire!
They suggest that the supreme court is wrong on the law. That reminded me of an aphorism I learned in law school. The supreme court isn’t final because they’re infallible, they’re infallible because they’re final. That statement reflects, perhaps, nothing more that the law’s desire for certainty. There must be a final arbiter of what the law means. This is where I find myself in agreement with movetoamend. They also disagree with the court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), at least as far as the court taking the power to decide what the constitution means. We both agree that the court went too far in taking that power.
They also want to amend the constitution to guarantee the right to vote. What they fail to realize is that the right is guaranteed, and is also mentioned numerous times in the constitution, starting with article 1, sec. 4. Section 4 states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.” There are also six separate amendments that restrict how the states may disqualify voters. Not to mention how many court decisions limit the states’ ability to disenfranchise voters. How much more do they want?
Let’s ask them. What is the language of the amendments they propose? Well, they don’t have any language, yet. They’re waiting to get opinions in before they commit to anything. It seems to me that they are the perfect exemplar of demagoguery. They make appeals to vague notions of injustice, using emotional trigger words and phrases like “democracy” and “corporations buying elections,” but when asked for a solution, they have none. They have a plan to get opinions, but nothing specific. They have supporters, but keep them anonymous for their protection.
A demagogue is a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. Seems like that’s exactly what movetoamend is doing.